DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 16, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “the ionomer is an ion exchange material”, and the claim also recites “a proton-conducting polymer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. By definition, electrodes must be either anodes or cathodes. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Ion exchange is a known and inherent capability of ionomer materials. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Table of terms:
Instant application
Zou et al. (US 2017/0179497 A1)
Moose et al. (US 2013/0202986 A1)
Ghielmi et al. (US 2014/0315121 A1)
Kohler et al. (US 2004/0023104 A1).
Electrode layer
Catalyst layer
Support layer
Supporting substrate
Substrate
Substrate
Membrane ionomer
Ionomer layer
Polymer electrolyte membrane
Coating composition
Electrode layer
Catalyst
Electrocatalyst
Claims 1-5 and 8-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over Moose et al. (US 2013/0202986 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2017/0179497 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Moose teaches all elements of steps a-c for forming the first CCM (Paragraph [0009]). Moose depicts inverting a second CCM over a first CCM and mating the surfaces to form a reinforced MEA (Fig. 1). Moose does not teach steps d-e in regards to inverting the first CCM. The distinction between Moose and the instant application is the CCM which is inverted for assembly, wherein Moose retains the orientation of the first CCM formed in order to accommodate placement of an inverted second CCM and the instant application inverts the first CCM for direct placement of the second CCM, due to the sequence by which the layers are placed to construct each CCM assembly about the substrate layer. Inverting the layering sequence for creating the first CCM and thus reversing which component is placed over the other to ultimately combine the two CCMs is merely a matter of rearranged assembly sequence or order of steps resulting in the same product. See MPEP § 2144.04(iv).
Regarding Claim 2, Zou teaches peeling a supporting substrate from an electrode to allow for placing the electrode on the side of a membrane ionomer opposite a side which is already coated with an electrode layer ([Paragraph [0072]). Zou does not teach peeling a supporting substrate from a membrane ionomer to allow for placement of an electrode thereon. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that peeling a supporting substrate from either the membrane ionomer or the second electrode for subsequent mating of exposed surfaces for combination of the two components is merely a matter of assembly sequence or order of steps resulting in the same product. See MPEP § 2144.04(iv).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Zou teaches coating techniques such as slot die coating and curtain coating for deposition of a catalyst layer (Paragraph [0070]). Slot die coating is a known intermittent coating technique in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. Curtain coating is a known continuous coating technique in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Moose teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. All electrodes are anodes or cathodes.
Regarding Claim 8, Zou teaches PET as an example of supporting substrate material (Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 9, Moose teaches that substrates may be gas diffusion media (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 10, Moose teaches substrate thicknesses of about 20 micron to about 40 micron (Paragraph [0033]). The range disclosed by Moose is more specific than the range claimed by the instant application.
Regarding Claim 11, Moose teaches methods for fabricating MEAs which may further comprise drying the first CCM and/or the reinforced membrane layer (Paragraph [0025]). Moose presents options for drying steps which may be performed of the first ionomer layer along with the reinforcement layer prior to deposition of the second ionomer solution, or after deposition of all three layers (paragraph [0026]). Moose does not teach drying the CCM before applying a support layer. Zou teaches an embodiment for preparing a CCM involving drying the first catalyst ink coating (Paragraph [0014]), and further teaches that the “steps need not be performed in the order listed and various orderings are possible, particularly with regards to the drying steps” (Paragraph [0023]). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the teachings of a drying step and attempt a finite number of configurations in rearrangement of process steps to include drying during the fabrication sequence. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding Claim 12, Zou teaches drying the second catalyst ink coating thereby forming the second catalyst layer for bonding to the membrane ionomer (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zou teaches a catalyst layer includes a catalyst powder and at least a first proton-conductive ionomer in an appropriate ink slurry (Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 14, Moose teaches the coating composition for forming the electrode layer to include a catalyst-based electrode ink. The electrode ink includes an ionomer matrix having a plurality of electrically conductive support particles distributed substantially evenly throughout. Catalyst-based electrode inks may include solvent, ionomer, and a catalyst (Paragraph [0034]). Moose further teaches that the catalyst may be coated on support particles (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 15, Moose teaches catalysts as typically including precious metals platinum, palladium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, or their alloys (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 16, Moose teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Ion exchange is a known and inherent capability of all ionomer materials.
Regarding Claim 17, Moose teaches that the ionomer can be a perfluorosulfonic acid (Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 6, 7, and 19-21 are rejected as being unpatentable over Moose et al. (US 2013/0202986 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2017/0179497 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Ghielmi et al. (US 2014/0315121 A1).
Moose in view of Zou teaches all of the elements of claim 1.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Ghielmi teaches preparing the cathode first in manufacturing a CCM and the associated benefits of the sequence (Paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the cathode accordingly for the benefit of improved performance.
Regarding Claims 19-21, Ghielmi teaches a PEM disposed between and in contact with an anode and a cathode layer (Paragraph [0003]). Ghielmi also teaches CCMs and MEAs as key fuel cell components (Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate and fuel cell into these forms as it is a known form for CCM and MEA in fuel cell components.
Claim 18 is rejected as being unpatentable over Moose et al. (US 2013/0202986 A1) in view of Zou et al. (US 2017/0179497 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Kohler et al. (US 2004/0023104 A1).
Moose in view of Zou teaches all of the elements of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Kohler teaches a coating composition ink solution where and the ink comprises 5 to 75 wt% of electrocatalyst (Paragraph [0046]) and the ratio of electrocatalyst to ionomer is 1:1 to 1:15 (Paragraph [0047]). An embodiment of the ink solution may comprise proportions of 5 wt% electrocatalyst and 5 wt% ionomer to yield an ink solution of 10 wt% catalyst and ionomer. Similar logic can be applied to arrive at ink solutions comprising 10 wt% or more of catalyst and ionomer as claimed in the instant application, and thus the claimed range is fully encompassed. Overlapping or similar ranges constitute a basis of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05(i). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the solution in these concentrations as it a known commercially available formulation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm, Fri 7:30am-12pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights